Gittin 47

וממקום שבאת מה להלן צריכות שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם אף היא צריכה שתאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

And on the same basis it may be concluded that just as they are required to declare, 'In our presence it was written, and in our presence it was signed', so she is required to declare, 'In my presence etc.' [which shows that the rule refers to outside of Eretz Yisrael]. R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah also bears out [this view], since it says, THE WIFE HERSELF MAY BRING HER GET, ONLY SHE IS REQUIRED TO SAY etc., which shows that it refers to outside Eretz Yisrael. Does then R. Joseph take the earlier clause [in the Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it states a blind man is qualified to bring a Get. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני האשה עצמה מביאה גיטה ובלבד שתהא צריכה לומר כו' ש"מ

and the later one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a wife is declared competent to bring her own Get. ');">²</span>

ורב יוסף רישא וסיפא בחוצה לארץ מציעתא בארץ אין רישא וסיפא בחו"ל מציעתא בארץ

to refer to Eretz Yisrael, and the middle one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Even the women whose word etc.' ');">³</span>

ממאי מדקתני מה בין גט למיתה שהכתב מוכיח ולא קתני שהכתב ופה מוכיח:

to outside Eretz [Yisrael]? — Yes; he refers the earlier and later clauses to Eretz Yisrael and the middle clause to outside. On what does he base this view [about the middle one]? — Because the Mishnah says, WHY IS A GET DIFFERENT FROM [THE REPORT OF] DEATH? BECAUSE THE WRITING AFFORDS PROOF, and it does not say, 'the writing and the declaration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mouth'. ');">⁴</span>

האשה עצמה מביאה וכו': אשה מכי מטי גיטה לידה איגרשה לה אמר רב הונא באומר לא תתגרשי בו אלא בפני ב"ד פלוני סוף סוף כי מטיא התם איגרשה בה

afford proof.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Because the clause refers to Eretz Yisrael no declaration is required. Abaye, on the other hand, may argue that there is no need to mention 'declaration' which is common to both Get and the report of death, since the latter too is accompanied by a 'declaration' made by the woman. (Rashi)]. ');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא דאמר לה כי מטית התם אתנחיה אארעא ושקליה

THE WIFE HERSELF MAY ACT AS BEARER etc. Is not the wife divorced as soon as the Get comes into her hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need has she then to bring it before the Beth din? ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי הוה ליה טלי גיטך מעל גבי קרקע ואמר רבא טלי גיטך מעל גבי קרקע לא אמר כלום

— R. Huna said: This rule is for the case where he says to her, 'You will not be divorced by this [Get] except in the presence of such-and-such a <i>Beth din</i>.' But all the same, when she comes there she is divorced?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she is still not the same as a bearer who has to make the declaration. ');">⁷</span>

אלא דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם הוי שליח לקבלה וקבלי את גיטך

— In fact, said R. Huna b. Manoah in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: [the rule is for the case] where he says to her: When you come there, put it on the ground and take it up again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus she is a bearer till she comes there and is divorced by the act of lifting the Get from the ground. ');">⁸</span>

והא לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם שוי שליח לקבלה

If so, he as much as says to her: Take your Get from the floor, and has not Raba laid down that if he says, Take your Get from the floor, it is no divorce?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he must 'give' it to her. ');">⁹</span>

הניחא למ"ד אשה עושה שליח לקבל גיטה מיד שליח בעלה אלא למ"ד אין האשה עושה שליח לקבל גיטה מיד שליח בעלה מאי איכא למימר

No. [The rule applies to the case] where he said to her, 'Be my agent for taking [the Get] till you come there, and when you come there be your own agent for receiving [it, and take it].' But in this case the agent cannot return to [report to] the sender?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the message has not returned to the owner'. Because meanwhile she has become a principal in the transaction and has ceased to be an agent, whereas the law of agency requires that the agent should report to the principal that he has carried out his charge. V. infra 63b. ');">¹⁰</span>

טעמא מאי משום דאיכא בזיון דבעל והכא בעל לא קפיד

— He says to her: Be my agent for taking [the Get] till you come there, and when you come there appoint an agent for receiving [it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here she never ceased being an agent and can well report to the husband, the sender. ');">¹¹</span>

הניחא למ"ד משום בזיון דבעל אלא למ"ד משום חצרה הבאה לאחר מיכן מאי איכא למימר

— This is all very well on the view that a woman may appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband, but on the view that a woman may not appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 63b. ');">¹²</span>

דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם שוי שליח להולכה וקבלי את גיטך מיניה

what is to be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife should not be able to appoint an agent to receive the Get on her behalf from herself who is the agent of her husband. ');">¹³</span>

ואיבעית אימא דאמר לה הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם אימר קמי בי דינא בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ומשוי בי דינא שליח וליתבוה ניהליך:

— What is the reason for the latter view? That it shows a contempt for the husband;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As much as to say she considers it beneath her dignity to accept it in person from the agent appointed by her husband. ');">¹⁴</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך המביא גט:</strong></big><br><br>

and in this case the husband is [evidently] not particular.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this procedure was at his express instructions. ');">¹⁵</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>כל</strong></big> גט שנכתב שלא לשום אשה פסול כיצד היה עובר בשוק ושמע קול סופרים מקרין איש פלוני מגרש את פלונית ממקום פלוני ואמר זה שמי וזה שם אשתי פסול לגרש בו

This is a valid answer according to the view that such a proceeding is forbidden because it shows a contempt for the husband, but on the view that the reason is because of [the resemblance of this agent to] a courtyard which comes [into her possession] subsequently,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V. supra 21a. The courtyard might be treated as the husband's agent to take the Get to the wife and on coming into her possession it becomes her agent for receiving it; and should it be ruled that a woman may appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband, we might be led to rule that a courtyard which comes into her possession subsequently confers possession. The fact, however, is that it does not, because a courtyard comes under the category of 'hand' (v. loc. cit.) and at the time when the husband placed the Get in the courtyard, not being hers, it could not be considered her 'hand']. ');">¹⁶</span>

יתר מיכן כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך מצאו בן עירו ואמר לו שמי כשמך ושם אשתי כשם אשתך פסול לגרש בו

what are we to say? — He says to her: Be my agent for taking [the Get] till you come there, and when you come there appoint another agent for taking it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her task as the husband's agent ceases at that moment and she can report back to her husband that she has discharged her mission. ');">¹⁷</span> and [later] receive your Get from him. Or if you prefer I can say that he says to her: Be my agent for taking [it] till you come there, and when you come there declare in presence of the <i>Beth din</i>, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,' and [then] make the <i>Beth din</i> an agent [for receiving] and they will give it to you. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ANY BILL OF DIVORCE WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN [EXPRESSLY] FOR THE WOMAN [FOR WHOM IT IS INTENDED] IS INVALID. FOR INSTANCE, IF A MAN PASSING THROUGH THE STREET HEARS THE VOICE OF A SCRIBE DICTATING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'causing (the pupils) to read;' to train them in drafting the formula of a Get. ');">¹⁸</span> 'SO-AND-SO DIVORCES SO-AND-SO FROM SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE' AND HE SAYS 'THAT IS MY NAME AND THAT IS THE NAME OF MY WIFE, IT IS NOT A VALID [DOCUMENT] TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE WITH. MOREOVER: IF HE WROTE [A GET] TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND CHANGED HIS MIND AND A FELLOW-TOWNSMAN MET HIM AND SAID TO HIM, MY NAME IS THE SAME AS YOURS AND MY WIFE'S NAME THE SAME AS YOUR WIFE'S', IT IS NOT VALID [FOR THE SECOND] ONE TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE WITH.